AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8965/070
Atrium Health Carolinas Medical Center, Women’s Institute, Morehead Medical Plaza, 1025 Morehead Medical Plaza Drive, Suite 500, Charlotte, NC 28204 USA
*Corresponding Author: Bradley S Hurst,Atrium Health Carolinas Medical Center, Women’s Institute, Morehead Medical Plaza, 1025 Morehead Medical Plaza Drive, Suite 500, Charlotte, NC 28204 USA
Citation: Schrader E. , Hurley T. , Welch D. , Ying Y. , Eskew A. , Bradley S Hurst* (2021) Severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome with GnRH agonist trigger during the COVID pandemic: lessons learned from an unusual case. J.Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences. 5(4): DOI: 10.31579/2578-8965/070
Copyright: © 2021, Bradley S Hurst, This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 16 April 2021 | Accepted: 21 April 2021 | Published: 30 April 2021
Keywords: ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; fertilization in vitro; leuprolide trigger; polycystic ovarian syndrome; assisted reproduction technologies; controlled ovarian stimulation; COVID-19
Background: Injectable gonadotropins stimulate multi-follicular recruitment and allows retrieval of multiple oocytes for assisted reproduction. The widespread utilization of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) to induce oocyte maturation for oocyte retrieval has nearly eliminated the risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and only a few cases have been reported in the literature. The rarity of severe OHSS may lead to the mistaken conclusion that gonadotropin stimulation can be safely administered with limited monitoring, even in high-risk patients. We present an unusual case of a woman with limited monitoring due to the COVID pandemic who developed severe OHSS before GnRH agonist trigger and oocyte.
Case Presentation: A 29-year-old nulliparous woman with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) initiated ovarian stimulation for oocyte retrieval. She had a robust initial response, and developed worsening abdominal pain, bloating, nausea, vomiting, and decreased appetite before retrieval. GnRH agonist was given to “trigger ovulation and retrieval scheduled due to the low reported incidence of severe OHSS. Symptoms progressed, and on the morning of retrieval, ultrasound demonstrated bilaterally enlarged ovaries >10cm and 48 oocytes were retrieved for a planned cryo-all cycle. She was hospitalized on the day of retrieval for severe OHSS and had two large-volume paracenteses. She was stable and discharged home by day 5, and symptoms markedly improved with the onset of menses. She has an ongoing pregnancy from her first frozen embryo transfer.
Conclusion: We add a rare case of severe OHSS with a GnRHa trigger and cryo-all protocol with the onset of symptoms before GnRH agonist administration. Although rare, severe OHSS may still occur with a GnRHa trigger, and caution is needed when an initial robust response is identified. Here we also provide an opportunity to review the important patient risk factors for the development of OHSS and measures to reduce the risk in excessive responders.
Ovarian stimulation with supraphysiologic levels of gonadotropins allows retrieval of multiple oocytes for assisted reproduction procedures. However, controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) poses risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), one of the most common and severe iatrogenic complications of COH.
During follicle growth, rapid perifollicular neovascularization occurs. In the past, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was almost universally used to trigger follicular and oocyte maturation for oocyte retrievals. HCG administration is problematic, however, for extremely hyperstimulated ovaries and may result in OHSS. Exogenous hCG causes follicle luteinization, which substantially increases vasoactive substance production [1]. Luteinization upregulates the VEGF receptor on ovarian endothelial tissue, a primary factor for increasing vascular permeability.
Mild ovarian enlargement with the growth of multiple follicles is typical during COH [2], but the overproduction of vasoactive substances is largely due to the introduction of the hCG trigger. With hCG trigger administration after ovarian hyperstimulation, one study reported a 3 to 6% incidence of moderate OHSS and a up to a 2% incidence of severe OHSS [3]. The World Health Organization estimates the incidence of severe OHSS to be 0.2 to 1% of all stimulation cycles [4].
Severe OHSS can result in third spacing and lead to ascites, dyspnea, hemoconcentration, electrolyte abnormalities, diminished renal perfusion, potential end organ damage, and thromboembolism [5]. The third spacing of fluid can result in a large-volume ascites in the peritoneal cavity, with potential for moving to the thorax and causing hydrothorax and pleural effusions. The combination of ascites and significantly enlarged ovaries leads to extreme abdominal pain, dyspnea, bloating, physical distension, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Severe cases warrant hospitalization for symptom control.
Risk factors for OHSS have been identified both before and during ovarian stimulation. Patients at high risk of OHSS include women with PCOS, elevated antimüllerian hormone (AMH) > 3.3ng/mL and a high antral follicle count [6]. One study found that women with an AMH level >10ng/mL were at greater than a 3-fold increased risk of developing OHSS [7]. Risk factors during stimulation include many growing follicles, a marked elevation of estradiol, or rapidly increasing estradiol levels (8). When estradiol levels reach 6000ng/mL during stimulation, one study reported 38% of patients who developed OHSS when hCG trigger was administered [9]. Another study found an increased incidence of OHSS with increasing number of oocytes retrieved [9]. Additionally, PCOS (3,8), and prior history of OHSS had a higher risk of OHSS (3). Women who become pregnant in a fresh cycle have a higher risk of late OHSS due to the natural and increasing production of hCG during the first trimester [10].
Utilization of GnRH-agonists such as leuprolide to induce oocyte maturation before retrieval has mitigated the risk of severe OHSS (1). Studies comparing GnRH to hCG have found no cases of OHSS with GnRH trigger compared to hCG administration [11-14], but a few cases of severe OHSS have been reported (Table 1).
1Cases that resulted in intrauterine pregnancy immediately after ovarian stimulation and egg retrieval
2One case was disputed as possibly secondary to hemorrhage
In this case report, we add another rare case of severe OHSS in a patient who underwent GnRH trigger therapy and discuss measures to minimize future risk. Since 2017, we have performed 1200 oocyte retrievals at our center, including 371 retrievals after GnRH agonist trigger. During COVID, we limited monitoring to visits considered “essential,” eliminating routine ultrasound and estradiol on stimulation day 6 to minimize office visits and the potential for exposure, according to Atrium Healthcare System and Centers for Diseases Control guidelines.
Case Report
This 29-year-old nulliparous woman with BMI of 30 met clinical criteria for PCOS based on elevated testosterone 160 ng/mL, hirsutism, polycystic ovarian morphology on ultrasound, oligomenorrhea, and a 3-year history of infertility. Tubal patency was confirmed by hysterosalpingogram and uterine assessment by sonohysterogram was normal. Thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) was 2.7ng/mL, and she was prescribed levothyroxine 25mcg. Prolactin, hemoglobin A1C, and vitamin D were normal. AMH was 21.9ng/mL, cycle day 3 FSH 4.9 and estradiol 34 pg/mL.
She initiated oral contraceptives the cycle immediately before the stimulation cycle, then stopped and began ovarian stimulation with 225U of rFSH (Gonal-F) for 3 days. The “day 4” estradiol was 1066 pg/mL, and she initiated human menotropin (HMG) 75 units daily and the dose of rFSH reduced to 150 units daily. Due to modified protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic to limit the number of required visits, 0.25mg GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) was started on stimulation day 6, and with the understanding that the risk of severe OHSS with a GnRH agonist trigger was rare, no additional monitoring was performed until cycle day 8, when estradiol was 7734 pg/mL and over 40 follicles measuring < 10mm were identified, including lead follicles 15mm and 12.5mm. Stimulation was continued and on day 11, estradiol was 10,4000 pg/mL and 30 follicles measuring > 10 mm, more than 40 < 10mm, but only 1 measured 18mm. Minimal free fluid was noted at this time. Leuprolide 40mg was administered the following day without ultrasound to limit monitoring. LH was 17.7 and progesterone 56.1 the day after trigger.
On the day before the GnRH agonist trigger, she began experiencing bloating, abdominal pain with movement, and decreased appetite. Her symptoms progressed until the day of her retrieval, where she experienced progressive shortness of breath attributed to abdominal distention. At presentation for retrieval, she required 1L O2 via nasal cannula and was tachycardic to 117. During retrieval, the ovaries were over 10cm in diameter and there was a large volume of free fluid. Nearly half of the follicles were unable to be aspirated due to access issues related to the significant ovarian enlargement. 750mL of blood-tinged ascites fluid was removed transvaginally at the completion of egg retrieval. 42 oocytes were retrieved, 29 fertilized with conventional insemination, and 11 blastocyst embryos were cryopreserved.
The patient was admitted and underwent aggressive fluid resuscitation, and was started on cabergoline, aspirin, and daily GnRH antagonist. Lovenox and sequential compression devices were started for VTE (venous thromboembolism) prophylaxis. Admission laboratory results showed an elevated creatinine 1.15 mg/dl (baseline 0.85 mg/dl), hemoglobin 12.4 g/dl, hematocrit 22%, platelets 168 and INR of 1.1. COVID-19 PCR tests were repeatedly negative. Her weight on admission was 84kg; by hospital day 3, she had gained 10kg. A second paracentesis was performed on hospital day 3 due to worsening dyspnea and inability to tolerate oral intake, and 1.7 L of fluid was obtained. Afterwards she improved. She was discharged on hospital day six and began her period 7 days after retrieval and quickly returned to baseline weight.
She continued to experience dyspnea and was admitted two weeks later for treatment of pneumonia. COVID-19 testing continued to be negative. Symptom eventually resolved. Frozen embryo transfer was performed in a programmed cycle approximately 3 months after retrieval, and she has a normal ongoing pregnancy.
The use of a GnRH agonist to trigger oocyte maturation has been an important development to reduce risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. It has previously been postulated that the use of GnRH agonist triggers can completely avoid OHSS risk for patients [11] and a Cochrane Review of 17 RCTs cited no cases of OHSS associated with an exclusively GnRH-triggered follicular maturation, which solidifies the safety of GnRH agonist trigger protocols [15]. However, since publication in 2014, a few cases of OHSS after GnRH trigger protocol have been reported (Table I) [16-22]. A total of nine cases are detailed in Table 1. However, three of these can be reasonably excluded as two were exacerbated by pregnancy in fresh embryo transfer cycles and another had suspected hemoperitoneum secondary to post-procedural hemorrhage, hypothetically mimicking OHSS symptomatology. A recent review concluded that OHSS is eliminated when no luteal support is administered [22]. In our case report, we present a case of OHSS coming from a GnRH-agonist trigger and cryopreservation of all embryos in the absence of endogenous or exogenous hCG.
This case is particularly interesting as the patient reported the onset of her symptoms (abdominal pain and bloating, nausea, and abdominal distension secondary to abdominopelvic ascites) before GnRH agonist trigger. At this point, her estradiol level had surpassed 10,400 pg/mL. Her presentation suggests an exaggerated response to the GnRH antagonist protocol that preceded her trigger, and thus, the development of OHSS without any administration of follicular maturation drugs. Literature review for similar such cases is scant and lacks content revealing the development of OHSS without an ovulation trigger.
The administration of a follicular maturation trigger, whether that be hCG or GnRH agonist, has been a requirement for all reported cases of OHSS thus far. This trigger is thought to be the factor leading to mass activation of VEGF and other inflammatory markers, but this case reveals the potential for developing OHSS during GnRH antagonist protocol without any administration of trigger. This case exposes a research gap in the foundational explanation for how this occurred.
Furthermore, this case poses the question: how could this have been prevented and what guidelines need to be established to avoid this outcome in the future? While difficult to predict exactly which patients will develop OHSS, prevention starts with identification of each patient’s risk factors and subsequent protocol modification to individualize each patient’s treatment. Our patient’s risk factors included a BMI 30, PCOS, and an AMH of 21.9 ng/mL. Furthermore, an exaggerated response to the GnRH antagonist protocol was first suspected on stimulation day 4, with a significantly elevated estradiol level of over 10,400pg/mL. We now reduce the stimulation dose for patients who have a markedly elevated estradiol after 3 days of ovarian stimulation. However, there is little to guide the day 4 estradiol level that would require a dose reduction, but 1,000 ng/mL is too high!
One small observational study published in 2019 expanded upon the GnRH trigger protocol in patients at critically high risk of OHSS and report good outcomes (16). In this study, two GnRH agonist triggers were administered, the second 12 hours after the initial, and GnRH antagonist was used for the three days after oocyte retrieval. The authors identified “high risk” as greater than 30 oocytes at retrieval with peak estradiol levels > 10,000 pg/mL. Our reported case meets those criteria and from this study, potentially could have benefited from this protocol adjustment. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s practice bulletin on OHSS also supports a similar set of various factors that providers can look out for in their patients, like PCOS, elevated AMH levels, peak estradiol levels, and high oocyte counts on retrieval [5]. These resources suggest that there is still an opportunity for advancing what’s no considered standard ovarian stimulation as well as the parameters around which we monitor these patients to eliminate the rare but serious development of OHSS.
In summary, this case adds a rare case of OHSS with GnRH agonist trigger and cryopreservation of all embryos without luteal support. Risk factors included an extremely high AMH and extremely rapid initial response to gonadotropin stimulation. It is likely that OHSS might have been less severe if the initial stimulation dose was reduced, or if the dose had been reduced on stimulation day 4. We expose a research gap warranting further investigation into the mechanisms responsible for causing OHSS, and mechanisms, policies, and protocols to reduce the risk.
Authors declare there are no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript.
Patient Consent:
This manuscript was deemed exempt from our Carolinas Medical Center Institutional Review Board.
Financial Disclaimer:
None.
All authors were substantially involved in the acquisition of case report data, contributing to drafting of the manuscript, and critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
